From: -Peter (pcorteen@gmail.com)
Date: Sun Sep 11 2005 - 10:16:28 BST
Case (and others on this thread),
I have problems with teleology also: if nature has a purpose where are we
headed?
Supposing we can keep ourselves from blowing each other up then what has
'the giant' got in mind? - modzillions of people scattered throughout the
galaxies or a man that can live longer than a star?
I think both Intelligent Design and Teleology afficionadose are attracted
by MOQ ideas because they see Quality as Divinity. Value; good, bad, God,
Devil, evil. But the bad quality events are our guides too: it's a good
think that I jerk my hand away after accidentally touching a hot stove.
I do though recognise the organising principle that Pirsig talked about but
reject the idea of a consciousness behind it.
-Peter
On 9/10/05, Scott Roberts <jse885@cox.net> wrote:
>
> Case,
>
> [Case replies [to Ham]]
> Evolution in no way violates anything to do with thermo-dynamics. We exist
> at a point in spacetime where we receive a constant stream of energy
> disipating from our sun. Life is, in many respects, the production solar
> radition being reflected off our planet's surface and bouncing around a
> bit
> before moving on. Being mystified that life begins in a simple form then
> become more complicated is a bit like needing a supernatural explaination
> for how a spark can become a flame. You can say that life has a direction
> or
> treads in its development but to say there is some final purpose or goal
> for
> it is, as I said, before: wishful thinking.
>
> Scott:
> It seems to me that Pirsig's discussion of evolution in Lila, ch. 11, is
> at
> odds with what you are saying. For Pirsig, evolution requires something
> that
> an old-style materialist (who thinks in terms of chance and mechanisms)
> would call supernatural, namely DQ. Pirsig says that there is no conflict
> between the MOQ and Darwinism, as long as "survival of the fittest" is
> understood as "survival of the more valuable". And he says that there is
> no
> conflict with teleological versions of evolution. To put it another way, I
> think that Dawkins would reject the MOQ's view of evolution as being
> teleological.
>
> - Scott
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG <http://MOQ.ORG> - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Peter Corteen Home: +44 (0)208-882-7898 Mobile: +44 (0)776-667-1194 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 11 2005 - 10:27:01 BST